Replies

The Mark IV had several simultaneous problems...

The WWII torpedo unreliability problem in the Pacific Theater, particularly with the U.S. Navy’s Mark 14 torpedo, stemmed from multiple issues: faulty magnetic exploders, incorrect depth settings, and unreliable contact detonators. Stronger springs in the contact detonators could have addressed one specific issue but not the full scope of the problem.The Mark 14’s contact detonator (Mark 6 exploder) often failed to trigger on direct hits due to weak springs and poor design, causing the firing pin to jam or not strike with enough force. Stronger springs might have improved the reliability of the contact mechanism by ensuring the firing pin moved with sufficient force to detonate the warhead.
However, this alone wouldn’t solve the other major issues:
Magnetic Exploder Failures: The Mark 6 magnetic exploder was designed to detonate under a ship’s hull but was overly sensitive to Earth’s magnetic field variations, often causing premature or no detonation. Stronger springs wouldn’t address this.
Depth Control Issues: The Mark 14 often ran deeper than set, missing targets. This was due to faulty depth regulators, not detonator springs.
Testing and Bureaucracy: The Navy’s Bureau of Ordnance (BuOrd) resisted acknowledging these flaws due to inadequate pre-war testing and institutional inertia. Even with stronger springs, systemic delays in addressing all issues would likely persist.
Historical fixes, implemented by 1943, included deactivating the magnetic exploder, recalibrating depth mechanisms, and redesigning the contact detonator with improved materials and mechanisms (not just springs). Data from 1941–1943 shows the Mark 14’s failure rate dropped from ~70% to under 20% after these corrections.In short, stronger springs could have helped the contact detonator issue but wouldn’t have been a complete fix for the Mark 14’s multifaceted problems. Comprehensive testing and redesign, as eventually done, were necessary.